This issue is seriously irritating me. While I am aware that a progressive tax is unfair to the rich who earned their money (as it practically punishes them for working hard), I am also aware that the flat tax, which would solve this issue, would cause financial distress to the poor. What are your views on both of these issues, and how did you choose one over the other?

To me, government's role is to protect its citizens from force and fraud. Thus, a progressive tax is fair, because the richer one is, the more they have to lose from force and fraud.If you think of it like insurance, the more you insure for, the more you pay.

Obviously, the rich would pay more in taxes than the poor under a flat tax, too. But, the issue is the rich have more ability to generate more revenue, thus they benefit more from our current system. Perhaps under a different type of government, like a monarchy, I would change my opinion, but I am for the progressive income tax in America, complete with all of its complexites and incentives.

The poor would suffer much under a fair tax, generally because of the massive credits they receive. The bottom 51% of Americans, as an aggregate, pay no federal income taxes. If we were to phase these credits out, then the swtich to a different tax system would be less burdensome to the poor.

However, I don't think we can adopt a "simple" tax plan like how the flat tax is marketed (you make this much, you pay this much). There are certain things, especially for businesses, that are treated differently under the tax code than in normal situations (like depreciation or not paying federal taxes on other taxes). So, I think in this light, all other plans lose their appeal, because the tax code will still be complex, and still have its alleged "loopholes".

At 8/23/2012 3:11:56 AM, OllerupMand wrote:I don't see how progressive taxes are unfair. You still get more for working more.

Yeah, and you pay more in taxes, too.

Yah, but you also pay more if you earn more with flat taxes.

Yes, but a progressive tax rate would make the rich pay taxes at a higher rate than the poor, while a flat tax would make the rich and poor pay a set percentage of their earnings, with no change in regards to that percentage.

At 8/23/2012 2:50:31 AM, adontimasu wrote:This issue is seriously irritating me. While I am aware that a progressive tax is unfair to the rich who earned their money (as it practically punishes them for working hard), I am also aware that the flat tax, which would solve this issue, would cause financial distress to the poor. What are your views on both of these issues, and how did you choose one over the other?

my view is that you pick your poison, and in my opinion the rich who have so much to give paying more is a better poison then the poor who have so little to give giving just about everything

On the other hand, the rich are rich because they were born into opportunity. The playing field is not even close to being level, so to say that it is unfair to tax those who have had an easier time in life more than those who have had to struggle doesn't make much sense.

In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

At 8/23/2012 3:11:56 AM, OllerupMand wrote:I don't see how progressive taxes are unfair. You still get more for working more.

fair can be used as a noun or a veb.(n) tax, taxation, revenue enhancement (charge against a citizen's person or property or activity for the support of government)(v) tax (levy a tax on)http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

(adj) fair, just (free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; conforming with established standards or rules)(adv) fairly, fair, evenhandedly (without favoring one party, in a fair evenhanded manner)http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

If tax is used as a noun, a fair tax would be "a charge against a citizen's person, property or activity for the support of government, which is free from favoritism, self interest or bias."

If tax is used as a verb, than to fairly tax something would be to "levy a tax on something, without favoring one party".

The English oxford dictionary defines fair as;

adjectivetreating people equally without favouritism or discriminationadverbwithout cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage

At 8/23/2012 3:11:56 AM, OllerupMand wrote:I don't see how progressive taxes are unfair. You still get more for working more.

fair can be used as a noun or a veb.(n) tax, taxation, revenue enhancement (charge against a citizen's person or property or activity for the support of government)(v) tax (levy a tax on)http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

(adj) fair, just (free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; conforming with established standards or rules)(adv) fairly, fair, evenhandedly (without favoring one party, in a fair evenhanded manner)http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

If tax is used as a noun, a fair tax would be "a charge against a citizen's person, property or activity for the support of government, which is free from favoritism, self interest or bias."

If tax is used as a verb, than to fairly tax something would be to "levy a tax on something, without favoring one party".

The English oxford dictionary defines fair as;

adjectivetreating people equally without favouritism or discriminationadverbwithout cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage

Taxing 95 people who make $15,000, at a rate of 10% would bring in a revenue of $142,500.Taxing 5 people who make $100,000, at a rate of 25% would bring in a revenue of $125,000.

If the those 5 people making $100,000 were taxed at a 100% rate, it would bring in a revenue of $500,000.A 35.1% tax rate for the 95 people making $15,000 would bring in a revenue of $500,175.

In other words, if 95% of the population only made $15k a year, and 5% made $100k, than a 100% tax rate on the top 5% would bring in less revenue than a 35% tax on the bottom 98%. A 50% tax on the bottom 98% would actually bring in 143% as much revenue as a 100% on the top 5%.

"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle

At 8/23/2012 1:43:12 PM, DanT wrote:Taxing 95 people who make $15,000, at a rate of 10% would bring in a revenue of $142,500.Taxing 5 people who make $100,000, at a rate of 25% would bring in a revenue of $125,000.

If the those 5 people making $100,000 were taxed at a 100% rate, it would bring in a revenue of $500,000.A 35.1% tax rate for the 95 people making $15,000 would bring in a revenue of $500,175.

In other words, if 95% of the population only made $15k a year, and 5% made $100k, than a 100% tax rate on the top 5% would bring in less revenue than a 35% tax on the bottom 98%. A 50% tax on the bottom 98% would actually bring in 143% as much revenue as a 100% on the top 5%.

The only justification for a progressive tax system is the redistribution of wealth. Whether or not such a justification is right depends on one's personal moral principles.

"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle

At 8/23/2012 1:43:12 PM, DanT wrote:Taxing 95 people who make $15,000, at a rate of 10% would bring in a revenue of $142,500.Taxing 5 people who make $100,000, at a rate of 25% would bring in a revenue of $125,000.

If the those 5 people making $100,000 were taxed at a 100% rate, it would bring in a revenue of $500,000.A 35.1% tax rate for the 95 people making $15,000 would bring in a revenue of $500,175.

In other words, if 95% of the population only made $15k a year, and 5% made $100k, than a 100% tax rate on the top 5% would bring in less revenue than a 35% tax on the bottom 98%. A 50% tax on the bottom 98% would actually bring in 143% as much revenue as a 100% on the top 5%.

The only justification for a progressive tax system is the redistribution of wealth. Whether or not such a justification is right depends on one's personal moral principles.

You have quit an ability have you ever thought about becoming a politician?The same can be said about a flat tax system where you pay a flat percentage of your income. Some still pay more than other so it is also wealth redistribution. If all payed the same flat amount then it wouldn't. The problem with paying a flat amount of money is that some people may be unable to afford it. You have the same problem with a flat tax. I may be able to surviev with the state taking 50% of my income, but others may not.

At 8/23/2012 1:43:12 PM, DanT wrote:Taxing 95 people who make $15,000, at a rate of 10% would bring in a revenue of $142,500.Taxing 5 people who make $100,000, at a rate of 25% would bring in a revenue of $125,000.

If the those 5 people making $100,000 were taxed at a 100% rate, it would bring in a revenue of $500,000.A 35.1% tax rate for the 95 people making $15,000 would bring in a revenue of $500,175.

In other words, if 95% of the population only made $15k a year, and 5% made $100k, than a 100% tax rate on the top 5% would bring in less revenue than a 35% tax on the bottom 98%. A 50% tax on the bottom 98% would actually bring in 143% as much revenue as a 100% on the top 5%.

The only justification for a progressive tax system is the redistribution of wealth. Whether or not such a justification is right depends on one's personal moral principles.

You have quit an ability have you ever thought about becoming a politician?The same can be said about a flat tax system where you pay a flat percentage of your income. Some still pay more than other so it is also wealth redistribution. If all payed the same flat amount then it wouldn't. The problem with paying a flat amount of money is that some people may be unable to afford it. You have the same problem with a flat tax. I may be able to surviev with the state taking 50% of my income, but others may not.

A flat tax is in proportionate to the amount of income someone earns, whereas a progressive tax is disproportionate.A tax on income can only be done through percentages, otherwise it's not a tax on income but rather a tax on individuals.

With a flat tax someone who makes $15,000 pays the same rate as someone who makes $150,000.So the before income and after tax income for a 10% flat rate are as followed;$15,000 before; $13,500 after$150,000 before; $135,000 after

In regards to a progressive tax rate, where someone making $15,000 pays 10% and someone making $150,000 pays 20%, the before and after income is as followed;$15,000 before; $13,500 after$150,000 before; $120,000 after

In regards to a regressive tax rate , where someone making $15,000 pays 20% and someone making $150,000 pays 10%, the before and after income is as followed;$15,000 before; $12,000 after$150,000 before; $135,000 after

In other words, progressive ad regressive taxes are redistributive, but flat taxes are not.

"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle

At 8/23/2012 1:43:12 PM, DanT wrote:Taxing 95 people who make $15,000, at a rate of 10% would bring in a revenue of $142,500.Taxing 5 people who make $100,000, at a rate of 25% would bring in a revenue of $125,000.

If the those 5 people making $100,000 were taxed at a 100% rate, it would bring in a revenue of $500,000.A 35.1% tax rate for the 95 people making $15,000 would bring in a revenue of $500,175.

In other words, if 95% of the population only made $15k a year, and 5% made $100k, than a 100% tax rate on the top 5% would bring in less revenue than a 35% tax on the bottom 98%. A 50% tax on the bottom 98% would actually bring in 143% as much revenue as a 100% on the top 5%.

The only justification for a progressive tax system is the redistribution of wealth. Whether or not such a justification is right depends on one's personal moral principles.

You have quit an ability have you ever thought about becoming a politician?The same can be said about a flat tax system where you pay a flat percentage of your income. Some still pay more than other so it is also wealth redistribution. If all payed the same flat amount then it wouldn't. The problem with paying a flat amount of money is that some people may be unable to afford it. You have the same problem with a flat tax. I may be able to surviev with the state taking 50% of my income, but others may not.

A flat tax is in proportionate to the amount of income someone earns, whereas a progressive tax is disproportionate.A tax on income can only be done through percentages, otherwise it's not a tax on income but rather a tax on individuals.

With a flat tax someone who makes $15,000 pays the same rate as someone who makes $150,000.So the before income and after tax income for a 10% flat rate are as followed;$15,000 before; $13,500 after$150,000 before; $135,000 after

In regards to a progressive tax rate, where someone making $15,000 pays 10% and someone making $150,000 pays 20%, the before and after income is as followed;$15,000 before; $13,500 after$150,000 before; $120,000 after

In regards to a regressive tax rate , where someone making $15,000 pays 20% and someone making $150,000 pays 10%, the before and after income is as followed;$15,000 before; $12,000 after$150,000 before; $135,000 after

In other words, progressive ad regressive taxes are redistributive, but flat taxes are not.

Why? With a flat tax you still pay more if your rich than if your poor. You still get the same service. So the rich is paying for the poor. I would call that redistribution of wealth.

At 8/23/2012 1:43:12 PM, DanT wrote:Taxing 95 people who make $15,000, at a rate of 10% would bring in a revenue of $142,500.Taxing 5 people who make $100,000, at a rate of 25% would bring in a revenue of $125,000.

If the those 5 people making $100,000 were taxed at a 100% rate, it would bring in a revenue of $500,000.A 35.1% tax rate for the 95 people making $15,000 would bring in a revenue of $500,175.

In other words, if 95% of the population only made $15k a year, and 5% made $100k, than a 100% tax rate on the top 5% would bring in less revenue than a 35% tax on the bottom 98%. A 50% tax on the bottom 98% would actually bring in 143% as much revenue as a 100% on the top 5%.

The only justification for a progressive tax system is the redistribution of wealth. Whether or not such a justification is right depends on one's personal moral principles.

You have quit an ability have you ever thought about becoming a politician?The same can be said about a flat tax system where you pay a flat percentage of your income. Some still pay more than other so it is also wealth redistribution. If all payed the same flat amount then it wouldn't. The problem with paying a flat amount of money is that some people may be unable to afford it. You have the same problem with a flat tax. I may be able to surviev with the state taking 50% of my income, but others may not.

A flat tax is in proportionate to the amount of income someone earns, whereas a progressive tax is disproportionate.A tax on income can only be done through percentages, otherwise it's not a tax on income but rather a tax on individuals.

With a flat tax someone who makes $15,000 pays the same rate as someone who makes $150,000.So the before income and after tax income for a 10% flat rate are as followed;$15,000 before; $13,500 after$150,000 before; $135,000 after

In regards to a progressive tax rate, where someone making $15,000 pays 10% and someone making $150,000 pays 20%, the before and after income is as followed;$15,000 before; $13,500 after$150,000 before; $120,000 after

In regards to a regressive tax rate , where someone making $15,000 pays 20% and someone making $150,000 pays 10%, the before and after income is as followed;$15,000 before; $12,000 after$150,000 before; $135,000 after

In other words, progressive ad regressive taxes are redistributive, but flat taxes are not.

Why? With a flat tax you still pay more if your rich than if your poor. You still get the same service. So the rich is paying for the poor. I would call that redistribution of wealth.

The tax does not determine where the wealth goes to, the appropriation bill does. The rich pay the same percentage rate as the poor.

Say the tax rate is 10%

Someone who earns $15,000 pays $1,500 in taxes, while someone who earns $150,000 pays $15,000 in taxes. Together that's $16,500 of taxes.

At 8/23/2012 12:42:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Definitely flat tax. About 50% of americans don't pay any taxes at all, while using public goods. Effectively, they are leaching off of society.

This can only be true if you account for children, and maybe not even then.

The stat I hear over and over from the right is the "bottom 51%". I don't believe this is true, because I know people in the bottom 20% that pay taxes.

I think it is an aggregate. Of the bottom 51%, there is an equal number of dollars paid in to the IRS by taxpayers, and dollars going to others of this group. Yes, there are people that look forward to April 15, because they actually get checks for thousands of dollars (in addition to any witholdings being paid back).

At 8/23/2012 1:43:12 PM, DanT wrote:Taxing 95 people who make $15,000, at a rate of 10% would bring in a revenue of $142,500.Taxing 5 people who make $100,000, at a rate of 25% would bring in a revenue of $125,000.

If the those 5 people making $100,000 were taxed at a 100% rate, it would bring in a revenue of $500,000.A 35.1% tax rate for the 95 people making $15,000 would bring in a revenue of $500,175.

In other words, if 95% of the population only made $15k a year, and 5% made $100k, than a 100% tax rate on the top 5% would bring in less revenue than a 35% tax on the bottom 98%. A 50% tax on the bottom 98% would actually bring in 143% as much revenue as a 100% on the top 5%.

The only justification for a progressive tax system is the redistribution of wealth. Whether or not such a justification is right depends on one's personal moral principles.

You have quit an ability have you ever thought about becoming a politician?The same can be said about a flat tax system where you pay a flat percentage of your income. Some still pay more than other so it is also wealth redistribution. If all payed the same flat amount then it wouldn't. The problem with paying a flat amount of money is that some people may be unable to afford it. You have the same problem with a flat tax. I may be able to surviev with the state taking 50% of my income, but others may not.

A flat tax is in proportionate to the amount of income someone earns, whereas a progressive tax is disproportionate.A tax on income can only be done through percentages, otherwise it's not a tax on income but rather a tax on individuals.

With a flat tax someone who makes $15,000 pays the same rate as someone who makes $150,000.So the before income and after tax income for a 10% flat rate are as followed;$15,000 before; $13,500 after$150,000 before; $135,000 after

In regards to a progressive tax rate, where someone making $15,000 pays 10% and someone making $150,000 pays 20%, the before and after income is as followed;$15,000 before; $13,500 after$150,000 before; $120,000 after

In regards to a regressive tax rate , where someone making $15,000 pays 20% and someone making $150,000 pays 10%, the before and after income is as followed;$15,000 before; $12,000 after$150,000 before; $135,000 after

In other words, progressive ad regressive taxes are redistributive, but flat taxes are not.

Why? With a flat tax you still pay more if your rich than if your poor. You still get the same service. So the rich is paying for the poor. I would call that redistribution of wealth.

The tax does not determine where the wealth goes to, the appropriation bill does. The rich pay the same percentage rate as the poor.

Say the tax rate is 10%

Someone who earns $15,000 pays $1,500 in taxes, while someone who earns $150,000 pays $15,000 in taxes. Together that's $16,500 of taxes.

As you can see paying the same amount of taxes is more redistributive than paying the same tax rate.

But that is only if you see it without the benefits you get from taxes and it only works as long as you look on their wealth as a ratio instead of their actuel value.

How about if we look at it with a 99.99% tax rate. It takes more or less all what we earns, but then it pays for all what we need. Let us call the system for notquitkommunisme. The rich earns 150,000£ and the poor earns 15,000£.

At 8/23/2012 12:42:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Definitely flat tax. About 50% of americans don't pay any taxes at all, while using public goods. Effectively, they are leaching off of society.

This can only be true if you account for children, and maybe not even then.

The stat I hear over and over from the right is the "bottom 51%". I don't believe this is true, because I know people in the bottom 20% that pay taxes.

I think it is an aggregate. Of the bottom 51%, there is an equal number of dollars paid in to the IRS by taxpayers, and dollars going to others of this group. Yes, there are people that look forward to April 15, because they actually get checks for thousands of dollars (in addition to any witholdings being paid back).